c 


8061 '12  HVrWd 

SI83IBW 

•sojg  pjoi^BO 
japuig 

^unouiojOMd 


Muaicipal 

Review 


Vol.  XI,  No.  2       February,  1922       Total  No.  68 


Special  Assessments 


PUBLISHED  MO^^^HLY  BY  THE 


NATIONAL  MUNICIPAL  LEAGUE 

"  RUMFORD  BUILDING,  CONCORD,  N.  H. 

EDITORIAL  OFFICE,  261  BROADWAY,  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y. 


as  second-class  matter  April  15,  1914,  at  the  post-office  at  Concord,  New  Hampshire,  under  the  Act  of  August  24,  1912. 
ice  for  mailing  at  special  rate  of  postage  provided  for  in  Section  1103,  Act  of  October  3,  1917,  authorized  December  24,  1920. 


NATIONAL    , 
MUNICIPAL    REVIEW 


PUBLISHED  MONTHLY  BY  THE 


National  Municipal  League\ 

Harold  W.  Dodds,  Editor  I 

The  NATIONAL  MUNICIPAL  REVIEW  is  sent  to  all  members  of  the 
National  Municipal  League.  Those  who  do  not  desire  to  become  members  of 
the  League  may  subscribe  to  the  REVIEW  by  paying  five  dollars  a  year  in 
advance.  Canada  subscription  rates  $5.'^5  in  advance;  foreign  $5.50.  Checks 
should  be  made  payable  to  the  National  Municipal  League  and  mailed  to  261 
Broadway,  New  York,  N.  Y. 


CONTENTS 

I.  Special  Assessments.    Committee  on  Sources  of  Revenue 

a.  Introduction 43 

b.  Distribution  of  Costs  and  Methods  of  Assessment 44 

Street  Improvements 46 

Sewers 50 

Parks 53 

Public  Utilities 54 

c.  Administration 56 

d.  Bibliography 58 

11.  Notes  and  Events H.W.  Dodds  59 


GRIFFENHAGEN  &  ASSOCIATES,  Ltd. 

Offer  their  services  on  problems  of  taxation  and  revenue,  fiscal  policy, 
accounting  and  auditing  control,  and  related  phases  of  governmental 
finance  and  administration. 

HEADQUARTERS  OFFICES  AT  116  SOUTH  MICHIGAN  AVE.,  CHICAGO 


.X 


NATIONAL 
MUNICIPAL  REVIEW 


Vol.  XI,  No.  2 


FEBRUARY.  1922 


Total  No.  68 


SPECIAL  ASSESSMENTS^ 

ASSESSMENTS  FOR  BENEFIT  AS  A  MEANS  OF  FINANCING 
MUNICIPAL  IMPROVEMENTS 

BY  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  SOURCES  OF  REVENUE,  NATIONAL 
MUNICIPAL  LEAGUE  2 

I.    INTRODUCTION 


In  providing  certain  public  improve- 
ments, especially  in  mimicipalities, 
benefit  accrues  to  the  land  adjacent 
to  or  in  the  vicinity  of  the  improve- 
ments. This  benefit  is  usually  reflected 
within  a  very  short  time  in  the  en- 
hanced sale  value  of  the  property. 
Where  improvements  in  the  public  in- 
terest result  in  increasing  the  value  of 
adjacent  land,  it  is  becoming  more  and 
more  the  practice  for  the  government 
to  assess  the  property  owners  with  the 
cost  of  such  improvements,  the  levy 
being  made  in  proportion  to  the  bene- 
fit received.  Such  levies  to  defray  the 
cost  of  public  improvements  are  known 
as  special  assessments. 

Assessment      for     benefit      as      a 

^This  discussion  of  Special  Assessments  in 
American  cities  is  published  by  the  National 
Municipal  League  to  meet  the  demand  for  in- 
formation on  special  assessment  administration. 
It  has  been  drawn  by  the  chairman  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Sources  of  Revenue  with  the  aid  and 
counsel  of  the  committee  and  is  based  upon  a 
series  of  manuscripts  prepared  for  the  committee 
by  Mr.  Clarence  E.  Ridley  and  Mr.  William  A. 


means  of  financing  public  improve- 
ments is  not  at  all  a  practice  of  recent 
origin.  The  principle  was  applied  in 
England  as  far  back  as  1427,  when  cer- 
tain acts  provided  for  apportioning 
among  the  land  owners  benefited  there- 
from the  cost  involved  in  the  construc- 
tion and  repair  of  walks,  ditches,  gut- 
ters, sewers,  bridges,  causeways  and 
trenches  which  had  been  damaged  by 
the  inundation  of  the  sea.  The  idea  of 
special  assessments  was  introduced  in 
this  country  as  early  as  1691,  when  it 
appeared  in  the  provisions  of  a  province 

Bassett  of  the  National  Institute  of  Public  Ad- 
ministration, and  Mr.  William  C.  Ormond, 
President  of  the  New  York  City  Board  of  As- 
sessors. 

'Luther  Gxjijck,  Chairman,  National  Insti- 
tute of  Public  Administration,  New  York  City; 
Robert  M.  Haig,  Columbia  University,  New 
York  City;  Harris  S.  Keeler,  Chicago  Bureau 
of  Public  Efficiency,  Chicago;  Miss  Mable 
Newcomer,  Vassar  College,  Poughkeepsie,  N.  Y. ; 
A.  C.  Pletdell,  New  York  Tax  Reform  Associ- 
ation, New  York  City;  William  A.  Rawles,. 
Indiana  University,  Bloomington,  Indiana. 


43 


483301 


'44  ;- 


NATIONAL  MUNICIPAL  REVIEW 


[February 


law  of  New  York.  The  important 
part  of  this  statute  was  copied  almost 
verbatim  from  the  English  Act  passed 
in  1667  and  re-enacted  in  1670  to  reg- 
ulate the  rebuilding  of  London  after 
the  great  fire.  Special  assessments, 
however,  were  not  generally  applied 
in  New  York  for  at  least  another  cen- 
tury, and  it  was  not  until  about  1813 
that  the  courts  recognized  the  prin- 


ciple of  such  assessments.  By  1850 
eleven  states  had  followed  New  York 
in  applying  the  principle  of  special 
assessments,  and  by  1875  fifteen  ad- 
ditional states  had  used  this  principle. 
At  the  present  time  the  principle  of 
special  assessments  is  accepted  in  every 
state  and  is  applied  in  some  form  in  a 
large  majority  of  the  cities  in  the 
United  States. 


n.    DISTRIBUTION  OF  COST  AND  METHODS  OF  ASSESSING 
IMPROVEMENTS 


DETERMINATION   OF   ASSESSMENT 
AREA 

As  the  principle  underlying  special 
assessments  is  that  of  distributing  the 
cost  of  public  improvements  in  accord- 
ance with  the  benefit  conferred,  the  de- 
termination of  the  extent  and  amount 
of  that  benefit  becomes  the  heart  of 
the  problem.  As  a  practical  matter, 
the  computation  of  the  benefit  con- 
ferred by  a  particular  improvement  on 
each  piece  of  property  is  greatly  facil- 
itated by  following  certain  general 
rules  for  determining  the  extent  and 
the  distribution  of  benefit.  So  far, 
such  general  rules  have  not  been  uni- 
formly adopted  over  the  country.  In 
many  places,  the  area  and  the  amount 
of  the  benefit  have  been  determined 
for  each  individual  improvement  by 
local  legislative  bodies  in  an  unneces- 
sarily arbitrary  manner  often  to  meet 
political  expediency  rather  than  to 
conform  to  the  economic  facts.  Sound 
practice  with  reference  to  the  deter- 
mination of  the  assessment  area  is 
discussed  in  this  report  under  each 
class  of  improvement. 


GENERAL   METHODS    OF    ASSESSMENT 

In  the  different  states  varying  stat- 
utory limitations  are  placed  upon  the 


plan  of  distributing  the  cost  as  well  as 
on  the  various  methods  of  assessment, 
yet  there  is  substantial  agreement  in 
respect  to  the  principles  underlying 
the  methods  of  measuring  the  degree 
of  benefit.  The  following  four  general 
methods  of  levying  assessments  are 
recognized  in  law: 

1.  Frontage. — ^Under  this  method  the 
assessment  is  spread  on  the  abut- 
ting land  in  proportion  to  the  front- 
age of  each  piece  of  land  abut- 
ting on  the  improvement.  The 
most  serious  objections  to  using 
it  alone  is  its  inelasticity  and  also 
the  fact  that  frontage  is  not  al- 
ways an  accurate  criterion  of  the 
benefit,  as  it  favors  deep  lots  at 
the  expense  of  shallow  lots. 

2.  Superficial  Area. — Under  this 
method  the  assessment  is  spread 
on  the  abutting  property  in  pro- 
portion to  the  area  of  the  land 
fronting  on  the  improvement  in- 
stead of  in  proportion  to  the  foot 
frontage.  The  inelasticity  of  this 
plan  also  makes  it  unsatisfactory 
for  use  alone.  Another  objection 
is  its  obvious  failure  as  a  proper 
index  to  the  benefit  as  it  favors 
shallow  lots  at  the  expense  of  deep 
lots. 

3.  Valuation. — ^Under  this  method 
the  assessment  is  distributed  in 


1922] 


SPECIAL  ASSESSMENTS 


45 


proportion  to  the  assessed  valua- 
tion of  the  land  at  the  time  the 
improvement  is  made.  It  favors 
cheap  land  at  the  expense  of  dear 
land  and  fails  to  recognize  that  the 
present  value  of  land  is  due  to  con- 
ditions existing  before  the  im- 
provement is  contemplated  or 
completed  and  that  those  con- 
ditions may  be  completely  altered 
by  the  improvement. 
4.  Proximity. — ^Under  this  method 
the  assessment  is  distributed  on 
the  basis  of  proximity  to  the  im- 
provement, the  nearer  land  paying 
more  in  proportion  to  its  super- 
ficial area  than  the  more  distant 
land  according  to  certain  estab- 
lished ratios,  which  will  be  dis- 
cussed in  connection  with  the  vari- 
ous improvements.  While  this 
may  be  considered  a  variation  of  the 
superficial  area  method,  its  recogni- 
tion of  proximity  as  well  as  area,  dis- 
tinguishes it.  The  proximity  plan 
overcomes  the  chief  difiiculties  of 
the  other  methods.  It  places  deep 
and  shallow  lots,  cheap  or  dear 
lots,  on  a  thoroughly  equitable 
basis.  It  has  the  further  great  ad- 
vantage that  it  is  applicable  to 
extensive  improvements,  the  effect 
of  which  reaches  beyond  the 
immediately  contiguous  land. 

EXEMPTION    FROM    ASSESSMENTS 

One  of  the  most  perplexing  questions 
with  which  municipal  authorities  have 
to  deal  in  the  distribution  of  special 
assessments  is  that  of  providing  for 
exemptions  granted  by  statute  or  or- 
dinance or  permitted  by  general  policy. 
In  many  cases,  particularly  where  the 
state  or  national  government  is  con- 
cerned, cities,  although  not  inhibited 
by  law  from  levying  assessments  against 
property  owned  by  those  govern- 
mental  units  or   by   private    institu- 


tions, are  unable  to  collect  the  assess- 
ments when  levied.  When  exemptions 
from  assessment  are  granted,  the  bal- 
ance of  the  assessable  projjerty  must 
either  bear  the  additional  financial 
burden  or  else  it  must  be  distributed 
over  the  city  at  large.  In  either  case, 
the  situation  is  complicated  and  does 
not  readily  admit  of  an  equitable 
solution. 

It  would  seem  that  any  exemption 
of  property  from  special  assessment, 
whether  such  property  is  in  govern- 
ment or  private  ownership,  is  unsound. 
The  benefit  resulting  from  a  public 
improvement  inheres  in  the  property 
affected,  and  the  distribution  of  the 
cost  in  terms  of  benefit  conferred 
should  be  made  in  that  way.  When 
national,  state  or  city  property  is 
affected  by  any  particular  improve- 
ment, it  may  be  necessary  to  meet 
their  share  of  the  cost  out  of  the  general 
fund;  in  any  event,  the  adjustment 
necessary  should  be  a  matter  of  public 
record  showing  that  a  regular  assess- 
ment had  been  made  against  the  prop- 
erty in  accordance  with  the  benefit 
conferred.  In  the  case  of  private 
schools,  churches,  charitable  and  other 
institutions,  there  should  be  no  ex- 
emptions from  assessment. 

PUBLIC    IMPROVEMENTS    FOR    WHICH 
SPECIAL    ASSESSMENTS    ARE    MADE 

Public  improvements  which  have 
been  generally  recognized  as  work  for 
which  special  assessments  may  be 
levied  are  as  follows:  (1)  the  acquisi- 
tion of  land  for  street  or  park  purposes 
and  the  subsequent  opening  of  streets 
and  development  of  park  property; 
(2)  execution  of  city-planning  projects 
involving  the  widening  and  straight- 
ening of  streets;  (3)  the  improvement 
of  streets,  including  grading,  paving, 
and  repaving;  (4)  the  construction  of 
sewer    systems   and   sewage    disposal 


46 


NATIONAL  MUNICIPAL  REVIEW 


[February 


plants;  (5)  the  construction  of  water- 
front improvements,  including  levees 
and  other  shore  protection. 

The  cost  of  bridges,  when  forming  an 
integral  part  of  a  street  improvement, 
should  be  included  in  the  assessment 
for  that  improvement.  Paying,  to 
some  extent  at  least,  the  cost  of  rapid 
transit  lines  by  assessment  on  property 
,has  recently  received  consideration. 
Although  no  application  of  this  idea 
has  been  made  up  to  the  present  time, 
two  cities.  New  York  and  Philadelphia, 
have  included  this  method  of  financing 
I  in  plans  for  the  future. 

In  addition  to  assessing  for  the  public 
improvements  noted  above,  the  prac- 
tice is  followed  to  a  limited  extent  by 
some  cities  of  assessing  the  cost  of  cer- 
tain public  services  rendered.  Among 
these  are  included:  sprinkling  and  oil- 
ing of  streets,  removing  snow  from  side- 
walks, cleaning  roadways,  cleaning 
sidewalks,  repairing  sidewalks,  care 
of  street  parking,  planting  shade  trees, 
care  of  shade  trees,  cutting  weeds,  fill- 
ing in  lots,  park  maintenance  and  even 
moth  extermination.  The  universal 
application  of  special  assessments  to 
meet  such  services  is  undesirable  from 
an  administrative  standpoint.  In  most 
cases  they  would  seem  to  fall  more  ap- 
propriately in  the  group  of  municipal 
services  financed  from  taxation. 

The  particular  problems  arising  in 
levying  assessments  for  each  of  the 
major  types  of  public  improvements 
are  discussed  below. 


1.  Street  Improvements 
opening  and  widening  streets 

The  plan  of  distributing  the  cost 
of  street  improvement  varies  with  each 
kind  of  improvement.  In  case  of 
street  widening  or  of  opening  a  new 
trimk  street,  the  total  cost  should  or- 
dinarily not  be  assessed  against  the 


abutting  property,  for  the  nature  of 
the  improvement  is  evidence  that  it  is 
called  into  being  by  traffic  demands 
outside  the  immediate  vicinity  and 
therefore  has  assumed  more  than  local 
importance.  Of  course,  if  the  owners 
of  the  property  on  either  side  of  the 
proposed  opening  or  widening  petition 
for  the  improvement  as  being  necessary 
for  their  convenience  or  to  accommo- 
date their  expansion  of  business,  or  if 
the  improvement  is  a  local  service 
street,  rather  than  a  trunk  street  there 
is  no  question  but  what  the  locality 
should  pay  part  of  the  cost.  If  traffic 
in  a  particular  locality  becomes  con- 
gested to  such  an  extent  that  it  is  ex- 
pedient to  widen,  extend  or  open  up  a 
new  street,  then  the  cost  of  such  im- 
provement should  be  distributed  be- 
tween the  district  so  benefited  and  the 
abutting  property  owners.  It  is  not 
uncommon  for  such  an  improvement, 
by  reason  of  its  strategic  location,  to 
be  of  very  important  general  and  of 
comparatively  little  local  benefit.  The 
equitable  distribution  of  the  cost  be- 
tween these  immediately  contiguous  and 
outlying  areas  depends  so  much  upon 
local  conditions  and  the  circumstances 
calling  for  the  improvement  that  no 
suggestion  of  value  can  be  made  here 
as  to  the  proper  allocation  of  the  cost. 

The  plan  of  distributing  the  cost 
must  be  determined  in  each  separate 
case  only  after  a  very  careful  investi- 
gation. It  is  well  to  add  here  that  in 
the  application  of  a  distribution  plan 
to  an  improvement  of  this  kind,  as  well 
as  to  any  other,  local  conditions  must 
govern  to  a  large  degree,  and  while  the 
application  of  the  method,  when  once 
the  plan  is  determined,  is  not  extremely 
difficult,  yet  common  sense  and  a 
thorough  understanding  of  the  method 
to  be  used  are  necessary. 

While  no  definite  plan  can  be  given 
to  govern  the  distribution  of  the  cost 
between  the  parties  benefited,  that  is 


1922] 


SPECIAL  ASSESSMENTS 


47 


the  degree  to  which  the  benefit  is 
general,  district  or  local,  it  is  possible 
to  outline  a  method  to  follow  in  spread- 
ing the  amount  of  assessment  to  each 
lot  or  parcel  of  land  once  the  plan  of 
distribution  of  the  cost  is  determined. 
It  is  safe  to  say,  however,  that  in  no 
case  should  the  entire  cost  of  acquiring 
a  street  in  excess  of  sixty  feet  in  width, 
which  is  the  generally  accepted  width 
for  a  local  street,  be  assessed  against 
the  local  property,  except  perhaps  in 
the  business  district.  It  is  true  that 
property  fronting  on  a  wider  street  is 
more  valuable,  yet  only  within  certain 
limitations,  for  after  a  street  has  reached 
a  certain  maximum,  additional  width 
does  not  necessarily  involve  additional 
benefit  and  it  may  if  too  wide  detract 
from  property  values.  In  cases  where 
it  would  be  equitable  to  assess  locally 
the  whole  cost  of  a  sixty-foot  street,  it 
would  seem  satisfactory  to  assess 
locally  25  per  cent  of  a  greater  width 
up  to  about  125  feet.  Some  years  ago 
in  a  paper  presented  before  the  Fomlh 
National  Conference  on  City  Planning, 
Nelson  P.  Lewis,  Chief  Engineer  of  the 
Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportionment 
of  New  York  City,  recommended  that 
the  25  per  cent  of  additional  cost  begin 
at  a  sixty-foot  width,  and  end  at  one 
hundred  and  forty  feet,  thereby  mak- 
ing the  percentage  of  cost  which  would 
be  locally  assessed  as  follows  for  vari- 
ous street  widths : 

per  cent 


60  feet 

100 

70  " 

89.3 

80  " 

81.25 

90  " 

75 

100  " 

70 

120  " 

62.5 

140  " 

57.1 

150  " 

53.3 

200  " 

40 

In  the  case  of  street  widening  the 
same  plan  would  be  applicable,  that  is, 
if  the  street  were  less  than  sixty  feet  in 


width,  the  additional  expense  in  order 
to  make  it  sixty  feet  would  be  assessed 
locally,  while  for  any  additional  width 
the  above  table  could  be  used. 

In  blocks  of  ordinary  length  and 
width,  it  is  customary  to  include  in  the 
assessment  area  all  property  to  the 
parallel  middle  line  of  the  block.  In 
determining  individual  assessments 
within  this  area,  the  method  described 
later  under  "street  paving"  is  used. 

STREET    GRADING 

As  it  is  ofttimes  desirable  to  grade 
certain  streets  some  years  before  it  is 
either  possible  or  expedient  to  pave 
them,  the  question  of  paying  this  cost 
naturally  arises.  As  this  step  is  es- 
sentially a  part  of  the  preparation  for 
paving  the  cost  should  be  distributed 
and  the  assessment  spread  in  conform- 
ity with  the  policies  pursued  when  deal- 
ing with  a  pavement. 

STREET   PAVING 

There  is  probably  no  other  improve- 
ment in  the  municipal  field  which 
claims  so  large  a  share  of  special  assess- 
ment receipts  as  the  paving  of  streets. 
No  extended  argument  is  necessary 
here  to  emphasize  the  importance  of 
pavements  from  an  economic,  social, 
and  aesthetic  point  of  view.  Progres- 
sive cities  have  realized  this  and  have 
provided  well  paved  streets  financed 
largely  through  special  assessments. 

Because  the  benefit  accruing  to  the 
property  owner  on  account  of  the  en- 
hancement in  the  sale  value  of  his  land 
by  the  construction  of  a  pavement 
adjacent  thereto  is  often  far  in  excess 
of  the  assessment,  no  argument  is 
needed  to  justify  the  application  of  the 
special  assessment  policy  to  this  kind 
of  improvement.  The  points  to  be  dis- 
cussed here  are:  first,  the  determina- 
tion of  the  total  amount  of  special 


48 


NATIONAL  MUNICIPAL  REVIEW 


[February 


benefit  to  be  assessed  and  the  boun- 
daries of  the  area  of  benefit;  and,  sec- 
ond, the  method  of  determining  the  in- 
dividual levies. 

In  arriving  at  an  equitable  distribu- 
tion of  the  cost  there  are  several  ele- 
ments to  be  considered.  In  the  first 
place,  if  the  street  is  purely  residential 
there  can  be  no  question  but  the  entire 
cost  should  be  borne  locally  regardless 
of  the  width  of  the  pavement  deter- 
mined upon,  provided  that  the  prop- 
erty owners  desire  a  greater  width  than 
would  be  essential  from  an  economic 
point  of  view.  On  the  other  hand, 
should  the  street  to  be  paved  be  a  main 
artery  of  traffic  or  develop  into  one  by 
reason  of  the  improvement,  then  it  is 
urged,  the  assessment  should  be  more 
general,  and  the  greater  percentage  of 
the  additional  cost  over  and  above  the 
width  required  for  local  use  should  be 
spread  over  the  district  benefited  there- 
by. It  might  be  that  the  additional 
width  should  be  provided  to  stimulate 
the  development  of  a  certain  district 
lying  beyond  or  at  one  end  of  the  pro- 
posed improvement,  in  which  case  the 
benefited  districts  at  both  extremes 
might  be  called  upon  to  bear  their  pro- 
portional share  of  the  burden  It  is 
obvious  that  local  circumstances  must 
govern  the  distribution  of  the  cost  in 
such  cases  as  those  mentioned  above. 

The  development  of  the  motor  truck 
and  its  use  for  interurban  freight  trans- 
portation over  the  city  thoroughfares, 
surburban  roads  and  county  highways 
has  produced  a  difficult  problem  from 
the  standpoint  of  special  assessments. 
Where  paving  specifications  are  ma- 
terially afltected  by  through  truck 
traffic,  this  fact  in  itself  is  evidence 
that  not  all  of  the  cost  should  be 
assessed  locally  regardless  of  the  street 
width. 

Statistics  show  that  practically  three- 

I     fourths  of  all  cities  in  the  United  States, 

with  populations  in  excess  of  30,000, 


assess  the  cost  of  pavements  to  the 
property  benefited,  one-half  assessing 
the  entire  cost,  while  one-foiu'th  assess 
only  a  portion  of  the  cost,  due,  in  many 
cases,  to  charter  restrictions.  In  many 
jurisdictions  charter  restrictions  have 
been  adopted  that  serve  to  thwart  a 
sound  special  assessment  policy.  This 
is  particularly  true  of  the  restrictions 
placed  on  the  assessment  of  street  in- 
tersections and  of  the  arbitrary  per- 
centage limits  for  special  assessments. 
Street  intersections  are  as  much  an  in- 
tegral section  of  an  improvement  as 
any  other  part.  Consequently,  the 
absurdity  of  such  restrictions  is  ob- 
vious. This  is  typical  of  many  similar 
legal  restrictions  which  are  hampering 
the  free  use  of  the  special  assessment 
policy. 

To  illustrate  further  the  lack  of  uni- 
formity in  assessing  for  pavements,  in 
Boston  the  amount  cannot  by  law  be 
over  50  per  cent  of  the  cost;  and  in 
New  York,  it  cannot  be  over  50  per  cent 
of  the  value  of  the  property  assessed. 
On  the  other  hand,  in  Providence, 
110  per  cent  of  the  construction  cost 
is  sometimes  assessed  because  expense 
of  collection,  issuance  of  bonds,  etc., 
are  included;  for  Buffalo  also  all  of  the 
expense  is  assessed. 

The  methods  of  spreading  the  assess- 
ment over  the  area  of  benefit  are  simi- 
larly diverse.  Many  cities  are  spread- 
ing their  assessments  on  the  basis  of 
frontage.  This  method  may  be  justified 
as  long  as  all  lots  are  the  same  depth 
and  shape,  but  obviously  overbur- 
dens a  corner  lot.  It  is  entirely  inade- 
quate when  applied  to  irregularly 
shaped  lots. 

The  method  used  by  Seattle,  Wash- 
ington, should  be  noticed  in  this  con- 
nection. There  the  property  fronting 
on  the  street  is  divided  into  belts  or 
zones  parallel  to  the  street,  and  the 
cost  is  assessed  on  the  property  in  a 
stated  ratio  to  its  area  lying  within 


1922] 


SPECIAL  ASSESSMENTS 


49 


I 


these  zones.  Forty  per  cent  is  assessed 
against  property  lying  within  the  first 
zone,  thirty  feet  wide  and  adjoining 
the  street;  25  per  cent  on  property  in 
the  zone  between  thirty  and  sixty  feet 
from  the  street ;  20  per  cent  in  the  zone 
bounded  by  lines  sixty  and  ninety  feet 
from  the  street ;  and  15  per  cent  on  the 
property  lying  between  the  line  ninety 
feet  from  the  street  and  the  central  line 
of  the  blocks.  This  plan  is  a  step  in 
the  right  direction,  for  it  eliminates 
many  of  the  glaring  faults  of  the  front 
foot  method.  It  is  a,  crude  form  of 
the  proximity  method. 

A  more  complete  and  scientific  meth- 
od of  distributing  assessments  for  grad- 
ing and  paving  improvements  is  em- 
ployed by  the  city  of  Flint,  Michigan. 
The  plan  for  levying  special  assess- 
ments was  introduced  by  H.  E.  Terry, 
former  city  engineer  of  Flint,  and  was 
developed  to  its  present  form,  about 
six  years  ago,  by  W.  R.  Drury,  at  that 
time  oflBce  engineer  in  the  department 
of  public  works.  The  main  elements 
of  this  plan  are  as  follows :  all  property 
lying  between  the  improvement  and  a 
line  midway  between  it  and  the  next 
street  is  included  in  the  area  of  assess- 
ment. The  amount  apportioned  to 
this  area  which  is  assessed  to  individual 
properties  is  determined  by  mathe- 
matical rules  which  vary  the  assess- 
ment on  the  basis  of  proximity  to  the 
improvement. 

Tables  have  been  prepared  running 
by  foot  intervals  to  a  depth  of  300  feet 
showing  the  amount  to  be  assessed  ac- 
cording to  these  rules.  (See  Reference 
No.  12).  In  spreading  assessments 
with  the  aid  of  these  tables,  the  deter- 
mination of  the  comparative  assess- 
ments of  long  and  short  lots  is  a  simple 
matter  and  irregular  and  triangular 
lots  are  handled  without  difficulty. 
These  rules  and  tables  resemble  those 
used  by  assessors  as  described  in  the 
National    Municipal    Review    Supple- 


ment of  January,  1920.  While  there 
are  cases  where  such  rules  cannot  be 
relied  upon  completely,  experience 
shows  that  they  do  serve  to  increase 
the  fairness  of  assessments  because 
they  eliminate  guesswork  and  discrim- 
ination in  a  large  measure. 

REPAVING 

Special  assessments  for  repaving  are 
by  no  means  as  universal  as  for  meeting 
the  cost  of  the  original  construction, 
yet  the  proper  distribution  of  the  cost 
is  no  more  complicated  than  in  the  case 
of  the  original  pavement,  and  if  the 
different  factors  enumerated  under  the 
discussion  of  pavements  above  are 
taken  into  account,  there  is  no  reason 
for  any  different  plan  of  assessment. 

It  is  true  that  the  reconstruction 
of  a  pavement  often  may  not  enhance 
the  value  of  a  piece  of  land  to  the  ex- 
tent that  the  original  pavement  does, 
yet  it  is  just  as  true  that  a  depreciation 
in  the  value  of  the  land  would  certainly 
result  if  the  adjacent  pavement  were 
allowed  to  get  into  such  condition  as  to 
render  the  property  less  accessible. 

Some  cities  are  not  permitted  by 
law  to  levy  a  special  assessment  upon 
the  land  benefited  for  a  renewal  pave- 
ment. The  costs  of  such  pavements 
must  therefore  be  distributed  through 
the  general  property  tax  rate  on  the 
basis  of  the  assessed  values  of  all  prop- 
erty. Such  a  policy  is  unfair  to  high 
priced  land,  to  improved  land  and  to 
the  owners  of  other  taxable  subjects. 

SIDEWALKS 

The  usual  practice  in  sidewalk  con- 
struction in  practically  all  American 
cities  is  to  assess  the  total  cost  against 
the  abutting  property.  In  most  cities 
the  property  owners  are  required  to 
pay  the  cost  of  construction,  repair  and 
maintenance,  and  reconstruction  when 


50 


NATIONAL  MUNICIPAL  REVIEW 


[February 


deemed  necessary  for  public  safety  and 
convenience.  There  are,  however,  a 
few  exceptions.  For  example,  in  Bos- 
ton but  one  assessment  can  be  made 
against  property  owners  for  the  con- 
struction of  sidewalks.  This  means 
that  when  a  sidewalk  of  any  character 
has  once  been  built  and  a  portion  of 
the  cost  assessed  against  the  property 
the  city  must  forever  after  repair  and 
rebuild  when  necessary,  or  even  con- 
struct a  much  wider  walk  than  was 
originally  built. 

Such  a  provision  is  not  in  accordance 
with  accepted  practice.  It  shifts  the 
burden  from  the  land  owner,  the  one 
directly  benefited,  to  the  city  at  large, 
where  the  benefit  is  but  very  limited. 
As  a  general  rule,  property  owners 
should  be  required  to  construct,  main- 
tain and  rebuild  when  necessary  the 
walks  adjacent  to  their  property  and 
should  be  held  liable  for  any  injury 
or  damage  to  persons  or  property  as 
a  result  of  neglect  to  repair  or  maintain 
such  sidewalks. 

In  spite  of  this  general  rule  there  are, 
of  course,  cases  where  the  construction 
of  a  sidewalk  may  with  equity  be  borne 
in  part  by  the  city  at  large.  Where 
sidewalk  construction  forms  a  part  of 
a  street  widening  or  city-planning 
project  and  the  demands  of  pedestrian 
traffic  necessitate  a  material  widening 
the  work  would  hardly  be  construed 
as  conferring  a  strictly  local  benefit. 

CROSSWALKS 

In  some  few  cases  the  cost  of  cross- 
walks is  made  the  matter  of  independ- 
ent local  assessment.  A  crosswalk 
constitutes  an  integral  part  of  the  street 
section  in  which  it  is  located.  The  cost 
of  constructing  it  should  be  included 
in  the  cost  of  improving  the  street 
and  the  identical  method  should  be 
followed  in  meeting  the  cost  as  obtains 
in  the  case  of  the  street  improvement. 


BRIDGES 

Ordinarily  bridges  alone  are  not  con- 
sidered among  public  improvements 
subject  to  special  assessment.  Bridge 
construction  required  in  connection 
with  a  specific  highway  improvement 
may  be  considered  as  constituting  an 
integral  part  of  the  improvement. 
Where  this  is  done  the  cost  involved 
should  be  included  in  the  general  cost 
of  the  improvement.  In  some  cases 
the  widening  or  replacement  of  an  ex- 
isting bridge  by  one  of  more  substan- 
tial construction  might  be  construed  as 
conferring,  at  least  in  part,  a  local 
benefit.  Under  such  conditions  a 
portion  of  the  cost  should  well  be  dis- 
tributed by  special  assessment  over 
the  area  deemed  to  be  benefited.  It 
has  been  the  practice  in  New  York 
City  in  financing  certain  of  its  bridges, 
not  only  to  assess  a  part  locally,  over 
a  benefit  area,  but  also  to  lay  a  special 
assessment,  as  a  surcharge  of  the  tax 
rate,  in  large  areas  of  the  city. 


2.  Sewers 

There  are  three  general  types  of 
sewers:  first,  there  is  the  sanitary 
sewer  which  disposes  of  waste  water, 
especially  water  carrying  polluted 
matter  commonly  spoken  of  as  "house 
sewage";  second,  the  storm  sewer 
which  carries  off  storm  water;  and 
third,  the  combined  sewer  which  per- 
forms the  functions  of  both  sanitary 
and  storm  sewers.  Because  of  the 
different  problems  arising  in  handling 
special  assessments  for  the  various 
kinds  of  sewers,  they  are  discussed 
separately  below. 

SANITARY   SEWERS 

There  are  different  types  of  sanitary 
sewers  in  a  complete  sewerage  system 
for    any    community.     The    simplest 


1922] 


SPECIAL  ASSESSMENTS 


51 


type  is  the  lateral  sewer,  sometimes 
spoken  of  as  a  service  or  local  sewer 
because  it  usually  serves  one  particu- 
lar street  and  its  benefit  therefore  is 
strictly  local.  The  next  in  order  is  the 
trunk  sewer,  usually  larger  in  size,  and 
into  which  the  lateral  sewers  discharge, 
provided,  of  course,  that  the  lateral 
does  not  empty  directly  at  the  point 
of  final  disposition,  which  is  rarely 
the  case.  This  sewer  may  also  furnish 
direct  connection  to  abutting  property. 
Then  next  comes  the  intercepting  sewer, 
which  is  a  still  larger  sewer,  and  as  its 
name  implies  its  function  is  that  of  in- 
tercepting and  collecting  sewage  from 
a  number  of  trunk  sewers  and  convey- 
ing it  to  a  point  of  final  discharge.  And 
finally,  there  is  the  relief  sewer,  which 
is  usually  built  parallel  to  an  old  sewer 
that  is  inadequate  because  of  growing 
needs. 

It  is  obvious  that  each  of  these  sewers 
presents  a  problem  of  its  own.  They 
are  therefore  considered  separately. . 

LATERAL   SEWERS 

It  would  appear  that  inasmuch  as 
the  benefit  derived  from  a  lateral  sewer 
is  merely  local  in  character,  that  it 
ought  to  be  fairly  simple  to  determine 
the  method  of  levying  the  cost  upon 
the  property  benefited.  However, 
this  is  not  the  case.  If  one  will  sketch 
a  few  lots  with  their  multifarious  shapes 
and  sizes,  it  will  be  seen  at  once  that 
the  problem  is  difficult  and  is  made  even 
more  so  by  the  nature  of  the  improve- 
ments situated  on  the  lots.  To  illus- 
trate, two  lots  may  be  of  equal  front- 
age and  depth;  one  may  have  a  house 
built  in  the  center,  thereby  prohibiting 
the  construction  of  a  second  house 
without  tearing  down  or  moving  the 
present  structure;  the  other  lot  may 
have  a  house  built  upon  one  side  with 
the  idea  of  building  another  house 
upon  the  lot.     Since  this  new  house. 


when  built,  will  require  sewer  service, 
the  lot  is  benefited  more  than  the  lot 
with  only  one  house  which  has  but  one 
connection.  Again,  one  street  has  a 
sewer.  A  sewer  is  required  on  a  cross 
street.  The  comer  lot  is  already  served. 
It  can  use  but  one  sewer.  Certainly 
another  sewer  adjacent  to  the  property 
will  not  enhance  the  value,  or  render  a 
benefit.  Such  situations  as  these 
make  the  problem  of  an  equitable  as- 
sessment for  sewers  a  difficult  one.  To 
solve  these  difficulties,  assessors  have 
applied  many  apportionment  rules. 
It  is  evident  that  the  frontage  method 
of  assessment  favors  deep  lots,  and  the 
area  method  favors  shallow  ones,  so 
some  cities  have  combined  the  two  in 
order  to  secure  the  merits  of  both,  but 
unfortunately  the  drawbacks  of  the 
methods  sometimes  oflFset  the  merits, 
and  dissatisfaction  has  been  the  result. 
The  arbitrary  ratio  assumed  in  most 
cases  is  to  assess  three-fifths  of  the 
cost  on  the  basis  of  area  of  property 
sewered  and  the  remaining  two-fifths 
on  the  basis  of  frontage.  Another 
plan  used  to  a  very  limited  extent  is  the 
entrance  fee  plan,  that  is,  charging  a 
fee  for  connecting  to  the  sewer.  This 
is  unsatisfactory,  since  the  money  to 
defray  the  cost  of  an  improvement  is 
needed  when  the  improvement  is  made, 
or  if  deferred,  within  a  definite  period 
and  not  when  adjacent  property  is 
built  upon. 

On  the  basis  of  these  facts  it  would 
seem  necessary  to  consider  the  entire 
cost  of  lateral  sanitary  sewers  as  assess- 
able to  the  local  area  served  and  to  dis- 
tribute the  individual  assessments  on  | 
a  basis  of  area  and  frontage,  allowing  j 
more  weight  to  the  former.  I 

TRUNK  SEWERS 

Inasmuch  as  trunk  sewers  often  per- 
form the  dual  service  of  picking  up  the 
discharge  from  laterals  as  well  as  direct 


52 


NATIONAL  MUNICIPAL  REVIEW 


[February 


property  connection,  it  is  clear  at  once 
that  we  have  a  problem  of  allocating 
the  proper  percentage  of  the  cost  to 
each  of  these  services.  Obviously,  the 
property  owners  adjacent  to  a  trunk 
sewer  should  not  be  called  upon  to  pay 
more  than  what  it  would  cost  to  con- 
struct a  sewer  sufficient  for  their  re- 
quirements plus  their  proportionate 
shares  of  the  cost  of  the  trunk  sewer. 
This  cost  would  be  levied  on  the  prop- 
erty benefited  as  in  levying  the  assess- 
ment for  laterals.  The  balances  of  the 
cost  of  the  trunk  sewer  should  be  dis- 
tributed uniformly  over  all  the  tribu- 
tary area  in  proportion  to  the  assess- 
ments for  lateral  sewers. 


INTERCEPTING   SEWERS 

There  are  good  grounds  for  not 
assessing  the  cost  of  intercepting  sewers 
against  the  property  benefited,  for, 
while  this  part  of  the  system  is  an  in- 
tegral part  of  the  whole,  its  local  bene- 
fit is  less  apparent.  It  is  more  a 
general  benefit  and  consequently  its 
cost  should  be  distributed  over  the 
community  at  large  either  by  special 
assessment  or  in  the  form  of  general 
taxation.  There  are  cases,  however, 
where  an  improvement  of  this  kind 
serves  only  a  limited  area  and  confers 
a  distinct  local  benefit.  In  such  cases 
the  cost  can  be  met  equitably  by  special 
assessment  by  the  same  general  method 
outlined  for  trunk  sewers. 


RELIEF   SEWERS 

The  need  of  additional  carrying 
capacity  in  a  certain  section  does  not 
necessarily  imply  a  faulty  design  of  the 
original  sewer.  It  is  not  always  pos- 
sible to  forecast  developments,  nor  is 
it  always  sound  policy  to  construct  a 
system  to  anticipate  development  by 
too  many  years;  the  carrying  charges 
become  too  heavy.     When  the  relief 


sewer  becomes  necessary,  its  cost 
should  be  distributed  over  the  area 
benefited  as  with  other  sewers. 


STORM   SEWERS 

While  the  assessment  principles  of 
sanitary  and  storm  sewers  are  some- 
what alike  in  character,  there  is  also 
one  particular  point  of  difference  that 
makes  it  more  difficult  to  locate  the 
benefit  in  the  latter  case.  Storm  sewers 
are  not  required  on  all  streets  since  ad- 
vantage is  taken  of  the  slope  of  the 
ground  or  grade  of  the  pavement  and 
the  storm  water  is  allowed  to  run  in 
open  gutters  for  a  block  before  entering 
a  sewer  through  the  inlet.  This  fea- 
ture makes  the  determination  of  the 
local  benefit  more  difficult  and  has  led 
some  cities  to  pay  for  all  storm  sewers 
out  of  general  taxation  or  bond  issues. 
As  the  construction  of  storm  sewers 
must  precede  the  laying  of  permanent 
pavements,  there  is  likely  to  be  a  heavy 
burden  placed  upon  a  particular  terri- 
tory if  the  total  cost  of  both  the  pave- 
ments and  sewers  is  defrayed  by  special 
assessment.  There  are  cases,  however, 
where  the  policy  of  special  assessment 
should  be  adopted  since  a  direct  and 
measurable  benefit  is  derived  from 
such  an  improvement.  In  levying  the 
assessment,  however,  the  same  princi- 
ple that  was  applied  to  sanitary  sewers 
cannot  be  wholly  accepted  when  assess- 
ing for  storm  sewers.  While  a  sanitary 
sewer  must  be  adjacent  to  the  property 
in  order  to  allow  a  connection  and  per- 
mit a  benefit,  a  storm  sewer  may  be  a 
block  away,  inasmuch  as  it  handles 
merely  storm  water.  Therefore,  the 
drainage  area  served  by  the  sewer  should 
form  the  assessment  area  regardless  of 
the  location  of  the  storm  sewer. 

The  distribution  of  the  assessments 
within  the  area  of  benefit  presents  a 
somewhat  different  problem  from  that 
raised  in  connection  with  other  sewers. 


1922] 


SPECIAL  ASSESSMENTS 


53 


The  amount  of  storm  water  to  be  car- 
ried off  varies  in  direct  proportion  to 
the  area.  It  would  therefore  seem 
reasonable  to  distribute  the  burden  in 
proportion  to  area. 

COMBINED   SEWERS 

In  dealing  with  a  combined  sewer, 
that  is,  one  performing  the  functions 
of  both  sanitary  and  storm  sewers,  it 
is  evident  that  the  problem  will  be- 
come less  complex  if  we  divide  the  total 
cost  into  two  proportionate  parts  just 
as  if  the  separate  design  had  been 
adopted.  After  this  has  been  done, 
the  cost  assigned  to  the  sanitary  sewer- 
age system  can  be  assessed  as  has 
already  been  described  and  the  re- 
maining amount,  or  the  storm  sewer 
share,  assessed  to  the  drainage  area. 


3.  Parks 

A  number  of  cities  to-day  are  enjoy- 
ing the  benefits  derived  from  the  crea- 
tion of  parks,  boulevards  and  civic 
centers  made  possible  by  liberal  charter 
provisions  allowing  the  special  assess- 
ment policy  to  be  applied  in  defraying 
the  cost.  That  the  function  of  a  park 
is  not  alone  to  provide  means  for  rec- 
reation is  brought  out  clearly  in  court 
decisions  relating  to  the  liberal  pro- 
visions relative  to  parks,  contained  in 
the  Kansas  City,  Missouri,  charter. 
Brief  passages  of  these  decisions  follow: 

"Public  parks  in  cities  are  essential 
to  health,  comfort,  and  prosperity  of 
their  citizens.  They  are  a  public  use, 
within  the  meaning  of  the  constitution, 
for  which  land  of  citizens  may  be  taken 
upon  payment  of  just  compensation. 
They  confer  general  benefit  upon  all 
citizens  and  special  and  peculiar  bene- 
fit upon  owners  of  real  estate  in  their 
immediate  vicinity." 

"It  is  comf>etent  for  the  council  to 
define  the  benefit  district  and  to  assess 


benefits  against  real  estate  benefited 
and  it  is  not  necessary  that  a  park  be 
paid  for  by  general  taxation  of  the 
whole  city." 

In  the  case  of  Haenssler  vs.  St.  Louis 
(205  Mo.  656, 1.  c.  681)  the  court  ruled 
that  "city  may  acquire  property  out- 
side of  city  yet  near  for  park  purposes." 

As  the  problem  of  assessing  for  the 
opening  and  improving  of  parks  calls 
for  special  consideration  as  compared 
with  the  question  of  maintenance,  we 
shall  consider  the  two  problems  under 
separate  headings  and  follow  then  with 
the  treatment  of  boulevards  and  civic 
centers. 


OPENING  AND   IMPROVING   PARKS 

One  of  the  early  applications  of  the 
principle  of  assessing  for  acquisition  of 
land  and  its  development  for  park  pur- 
poses was  made  in  New  York  City  in 
1853,  when  land  was  acquired  for  Cen- 
tral Park,  and  of  the  total  cost  amount- 
ing to  $5,169,369.90  a  certain  share  was 
assessed  against  the  property  benefited. 
Since  that  time  developments  have 
been  such  that  Central  Park  now  forms 
the  border  for  the  most  valuable  res- 
idential property  in  the  city,  which  is 
largely  the  result  of  the  park  develop- 
ment. The  enhancement  in  value  of  the 
property  benefited  probably  would  have 
justified  the  levying  of  the  total  cost  of 
the  improvement.  The  same  is  true 
of  parks  in  many  other  cities.  Expe- 
rience has  demonstrated  beyond  doubt 
that  the  mere  taking  of  property  for 
park  purposes  immediately  enhances 
the  sale  value  of  adjacent  property. 
The  amount  of  the  benefit  depends 
upon  the  proximity  of  the  property 
to  the  park  and  will  diminish  as  the 
distance  from  the  park  increases.  It 
would  seem,  therefore,  that  the  method 
pursued  by  such  cities  as  Kansas  City, 
Denver  and  Indianapolis  of  dividing 
the   city   into   certain   park   districts 


54 


NATIONAL  MUNICIPAL  REVIEW 


[February 


and  then  assessing  each  district  for 
the  entire  cost  of  the  parks  for  that 
particular  district  is  in  most  cases 
sound.  As  to  the  method  of  levying 
the  assessment  within  the  area  of  ben- 
efit, excellent  opportunity  is  offered 
for  the  application  of  the  zone  method. 
The  location  of  the  lines  determining 
the  boundaries  of  the  different  zones 
and  the  proportion  of  the  total  cost 
to  be  paid  by  each  zone  should  be  fixed 
to  fit  the  particular  territory.  Perhaps 
the  most  scientific  method  of  deter- 
mining the  distribution  of  cost  by  this 
method  was  worked  out  during  1917 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  chief  en- 
gineer of  the  Board  of  Estimate  and 
Apportionment  of  New  York  City. 
(See  Reference  No.  9.)  It  is  based  on 
various  mathematical  formulae  derived 
from  a  careful  study  of  benefits  de- 
rived from  parks  in  New  York  City. 

BOULEVARDS 

Any  well-designed  park  plan  will 
ordinarily  include  a  system  of  boule- 
vards either  within  or  connecting  the 
separate  park  areas.  A  boulevard  is 
both  a  part  of  the  park  system  and  a 
pleasure  thoroughfare.  It  is  therefore 
reasonable  to  distribute  a  very  con- 
siderable part  of  the  cost  of  the  boule- 
vard system  over  the  city  as  a  whole. 

CI\^C  CENTERS 

In  reality  civic  centers  fall  in  the 
same  category  as  parks,  yet  their  im- 
portance the  past  few  years  and  their 
almost  certain  prominence  in  the  years 
to  come  warrant  at  least  separate  men- 
tion. One  of  the  most  elaborate  civic 
centers  is  that  developed  by  the  city 
of  Denver  at  a  cost  of  $2,685,000.  This 
civic  center  is  near  the  heart  of  the 
city  and  on  territory  previously  built 
up  by  permanent  buildings  which  had 
to  be  acquired  by  the  power  of  eminent 


domain  and  destroyed.  It  falls  in  one 
of  Denver's  four  park  districts  which 
was  assessed  to  meet  the  cost  of  the 
project  on  the  basis  of  benefit.  \ 


4.  Public  Utilities 

The  financing  of  service  extensions 
of  what  are  commonly  called  public 
utilities — ^water,  gas,  electric,  and 
street  railway  systems — ^by  means  of 
special  assessments  presents  a  some- 
what different  problem.  With  the  ex- 
ception of  water  supply  extensions  few 
cities  have  levied  special  assessments 
for  public  utility  extensions.  Never- 
theless it  needs  no  argument  to  show 
that  the  extension  of  public  utilities 
confers  a  distinct  local  benefit.  If  the 
extension  is  not  premature,  the  benefit 
conferred  will  exceed  the  costs  of  the 
extension. 

Where  the  utility  is  privately  owned, 
the  extensions  are  of  necessity  privately 
financed,  but  where  they  are  publicly 
owned  the  service  extensions  should  be 
locally  assessed  because  the  benefit  is 
local.  It  should  not  be  overlooked 
that  such  a  policy  will  tend  to  restrict 
service  extensions  until  they  are  needed 
and  will  to  this  extent  encourage  a 
more  economical  development  of  public 
utilities. 

Each  utility  presents  distinct  prob- 
lems. In  the  following  paragraphs  the 
more  important  of  these  are  discussed. 


WATER  line   extensions 

Though  a  large  number  of  cities  meet 
the  cost  of  laying  water  mains  by  special 
assessments,  the  majority  still  pay  for 
service  extensions  from  the  surplus  in 
the  water  fund.  It  is  not  easy  to 
justify  this  practice  of  asking  con- 
sumers to  pay  for  new  extensions. 
Service  extensions  should  certainly  be 


1922] 


SPECIAL  ASSESSMENTS 


55 


Some  cities  assess  a  certain  stipu- 
lated amount  per  front  foot.  This  plan 
is  obviously  not  equitable  for  the  same 
reasons  that  have  been  pointed  out  in 
the  case  of  sewers.  The  city  of  Bristol, 
Connecticut,  in  1919,  adopted  a  char- 
ter amendment  which  provides  that 
when  the  estimated  net  income  from 
water  revenue  from  a  new  line  shall  be 
less  than  10  per  cent  of  the  construc- 
tion cost,  the  board  of  water  commis- 
sioners may  assess  the  deficit  against 
the  property  benefited.  Other  cities 
have  adopted  similar  provisions  and 
on  the  whole  the  plan  is  commendable. 
Care  should  be  exercised,  however,  to 
limit  the  application  of  this  policy  to 
lines  primarily  designed  for  private 
consumption.  When  extensions  are 
made  to  support  the  distribution  sys- 
tem, community  benefit  is  involved 
and  the  difference  in  cost  should  be 
met  from  other  sources. 

The  area  of  benefit  and  the  individ- 
ual assessments  should  be  determined 
in  accordance  with  the  principles  which 
govern  assessments  for  sanitary  sewers. 
The  accruing  benefit  would  seem  to  be 
similarly  distributed  in  the  two  cases. 

HIGH   PRESSURE   FIRE   PROTECTION 
SYSTEMS 

It  is  strange  that  many  cities  fail  to 
recognize  the  possibility  of  special 
assessments  in  paying  for  separate 
high  pressure  fire  protection  systems. 
While  there  is  an  element  of  commu- 
nity or  general  benefit  derived  from  the 
added  safety  of  having  an  additional 
high  pressure  water  supply  service, 
this  general  benefit  is  slight  compared 
with  the  very  real  benefit  derived  by  the 
locality  immediately  served.  In  gen- 
eral these  high  pressure  fire  systems 
furnish  water  unsuitable  and  unused  for 
any  other  purpose  than  fire-fighting, 
yet  the  ordinary  practice  has  been  to 
meet  the  capital  cost  by  general  taxa- 


tion, and  the  operation  and  mainte- 
nance charges  from  water  revenue  re- 
ceived from  private  consumers.  Here 
again  the  consumers  scattered  over  the 
entire  city  pay  for  the  protection 
ajfforded  a  limited  number  of  property 
owners  who  are  reaping  definite  benefits 
through  decreased  fire  insurance  rates 
and  better  protection.  If  benefit  is  to 
govern  the  distribution  of  the  cost  for 
local  improvements,  surely  here  is  a 
clear  case  for  the  application  of  a  spe- 
cial assessment  policy.  The  area  served 
should  be  the  area  of  benefit  and  the  in- 
dividual assessments  should  be  levied  j 
in  proportion  to  land  values.  Though 
it  may  at  first  thought  appear  strange 
to  use  land  value  as  a  measure  of  the 
benefit  to  be  derived  from  a  high  pres- 
sure system  which  protects  combus- 
tible property,  and  not  land,  analysis 
shows  that  land  values  reflect  very 
closely  the  economic  possibilities  of  the 
locality.  It  is  only  on  the  higher  val- 
ued land  that  the  taller  buildings  can 
be  erected  profitably.  While  there  are 
isolated  tall  buildings  on  low  priced 
land,  this  very  isolation  limits  the  dan- 
ger of  a  conflagration  beyond  the  con- 
trol of  the  ordinary  fire-fighting  system 
and  therefore  the  benefit  of  a  high  pres- 
sure system. 

STREET   LIGHTING   FACILITIES 

Street  lighting  is  primarily  intended 
to  protect  the  community  against  haz- 
ards of  various  kinds,  and  as  such  may 
be  considered  as  providing  a  strictly 
community  benefit  to  be  paid  for  in 
the  general  budget.  At  the  same  time 
unusual  street  lighting,  for  example  of  ] 
an  ornamental  character,  on  a  main 
thoroughfare  does  not  fall  within  the 
terms  of  this  definition  and  may  be 
considered  as  conferring  a  strictly  local 
benefit,  and  as  such  subject  to  local 
assessment.  Furthermore,  the  cost 
of   any   street   lighting   improvement 


56 


NATIONAL  MUNICIPAL  REVIEW 


[February 


providing  facilities  in  excess  of  those 
recognized  as  necessary  to  safeguard 
the  community  could  with  equity  be 
assessed  in  part  against  the  property 
benefited  at  least  to  the  extent  that  the 
cost  exceeds  that  required  to  furnish 
the  necessary  facilities  to  afford  ade- 
\  quate  protection.  Ohio  specifically 
provides  for  the  assessment  of  property 
1  benefited  by  street  lighting.  In  several 
1  instances  the  courts  have  upheld  the 
!  practice.  Perhaps  the  most  noted 
case  is  Ankeny  vs.  the  City  of  Spokane, 
in  which  the  courts  held  that  the  fiu*- 
nishing  of  electrical  energy  for  street 
lighting  purposes  for  a  limited  term  is  a 
local  improvement  within  the  meaning 
of  a  constitutional  provision  permitting 
the  financing  of  such  improvements 
by  special  taxation  of  the  property 
benefited.  It  was  also  held  that  a 
street  lighting  system  including  orna- 
mental features  does  not  prevent  the 
assessment  of  the  additional  cost  in- 
cidental to  these  features  against  the 
property  benefited.  In  view  of  the 
nature  of  ornamental  street  lighting  a 
distribution  of  its  cost  on  the  basis  of 
frontage  would  appear  sound  practice. 

STREET   RAILWAY   AND   RAPID 
TRANSIT    LINES 

In  our  growing  cities  the  extension 
of  street  railway  or  rapid  transit  lines 
has  more  effect  upon  real  estate  values 
than  the  development  of  any  other  sin- 
gle utility.  Figures  show  that  timely 
extensions  of  transportation  facilities 
cost  less  than  the  enhancement  of 
land  values  produced  thereby.  In  the 
case  of  one  of  the  subway  extensions 
in  New  York  City  the  aggregate  in- 
crease in  land  value  of  a  district  extend- 


ing about  a  half  mile  on  either  side  of 
the  subway,  due  to  the  building  of  the 
subway,  and  in  excess  of  a  normal  rise 
of  $13,500,000  was  about  $31,300,000. 
The  cost  of  theline  was  about  $5,700,000. 
Had  the  property  which  was  benefited 
borne  this  expense  through  the  form  of 
an  assessment,  after  paying  such  assess- 
ment, there  would  still  have  remained 
an  aggregate  profit  of  $25,600,000  in 
excess  of  the  normal  rise  in  value. 

This  case  is  not  exceptional.  Tran- 
sit facilities  confer  a  distinct  local  ben- 
efit. It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  financ- 
ing publicly-owned  trolley  and  rapid 
transit  extensions  offers  a  legitimate 
field  for  special  assessments. 

The  distribution  of  cost,  of  course, 
will  depend  largely  upon  local  condi- 
tions. The  chief  benefit  resulting  from 
the  construction  of  rapid  transit  lines  / 
accrues  to  two  zones  of  the  city.  The ' 
first  of  these  is  the  business  district, 
the  boundaries  of  which  must  be  deter- 
mined by  each  city  for  itself.  The  sec- 
ond, and  perhaps  the  more  important, 
is  the  area  tributary  to  the  new  line 
which  will  include  the  residential  and 
undeveloped  districts  into  which  the 
line  is  extended.  Very  little  benefit 
will  accrue  to  the  district  intervening 
between  these  two  areas  except  right 
along  the  lines  themselves  where  these 
are  surface  street  cars.  The  deter- 
mination of  the  area  of  benefit  in  the 
residence  districts  and  the  apportion- 
ment of  individual  assessments  are  to 
be  handled  by  the  proximity  method. 
In  the  case  of  subways  and  elevated 
lines  with  stations  several  blocks  apart, 
the  zones  will  be  concentric  about 
those  stops.  Express  stops  confer  a 
larger  benefit  and  justify  larger  zones 
and  heavier  assessments. 


III.  ADMINISTRATION 


A  well-planned  and  eflficiently  con- 
structed public  improvement  confers 
a  benefit  upon  the  community  at  least 


equal  to  its  cost.  This  benefit  is  sel- 
dom distributed  evenly  over  the  entire 
city.     In  almost  all  cases  certain  lo- 


1922] 


SPECIAL  ASSESSMENTS 


57 


calities  benefit  far  more  than  others 
from  the  improvement.  It  is  there- 
fore only  fair  to  ask  the  specially  bene- 
fited areas  to  make  special  contribu- 
tions to  meet  the  costs  involved.  Any 
other  policy  results  in  a  special  bene- 
fit to  some  at  the  expense  of  the  entire 
community.  In  recognition  of  this 
an  increasing  majority  of  our  cities  are 
financing  improvements  by  means  of 
special  assessments.  There  are  still 
some  communities,  however,  that  have 
yet  to  adopt  the  policy  of  special  assess- 
ments, and  there  are  no  cities  that  have 
recognized  the  full  implications  or  pos- 
sibilities of  the  policy. 

The  success  of  special  assessment 
policies  depends  largely  upon  adminis- 
tration. While  it  is  the  purpose  of 
this  report  to  deal  primarily  with  the 
technique  of  assessing  the  costs  of  local 
improvements,  the  following  broader 
problems  of  administration  may  be 
mentioned. 


STABILIZED    POLICY 

Land  values  in  any  community  de- 
pend upon  anticipations.  Wherever 
these  anticipations  rest  upon  uncertain 
foundations,  needless  costs  and  for- 
tuitous profits  result  with  an  inevitable 
hampering  of  community  growth.  For 
this  reason,  a  stabilized  assessment 
policy  is  of  great  importance  to  the 
city  as  a  whole.  It  assists  in  the  stabi- 
lization of  land  values. 


PUBLICITY 

Publicity  is  the  best  safeguard  a 
community  can  have  against  ill-ad- 
vised and  extravagant  improvements. 
The  administrative  provisions  for  in- 
itiating and  authorizing  assessable  im- 
provements should  therefore  include 
adequate  machinery  for  informing  those 
who  will  pay  for  a  given  improvement 
what  their  individual  assessments  will 


be  and  what  benefit  they  may  expect  to 
derive.  Methods  should  be  established 
whereby  all  the  pertinent  facts  will  be 
made  known  and  the  opponents  as 
well  as  the  proponents  of  an  improve- 
ment given  their  day  in  court.  Where 
full  opportunity  to  be  heard  and  full 
publicity  are  guaranteed,  the  govern- 
ing body  of  a  community  should  have 
the  final  decision  as  to  each  individual 
improvement,  in  order  that  the  con- 
servatism of  one  locality  may  not 
thwart  the  best  interests  of  the  entire 
city. 

COLLECTIONS 

Special  assessments  should  be  pay- 
able either  in  a  lump  sum  or  in  install- 
ments at  the  option  of  the  land  owner. 
Such  a  policy  makes  it  possible  to  lay 
and  collect  relatively  heavy  assessments 
without  hardship.  It  is  also  of  the  ut- 
most importance  that  collections  be 
rigidly  enforced.  A  lax  policy  of  tax 
collection  is  more  expensive  in  the 
long  run,  and  proves  particularly 
embarrassing  in  the  case  of  special 
assessments. 


ASSESSMENT    STANDARDS 

Certain  cities  experimenting  inde- 
pendently have  evolved  standards  of 
special  assessment  administration.  It 
has  been  the  purpose  of  this  report  to 
outline  these  standards  and  to  make 
them  the  common  property  of  all  public 
officials  and  students  of  government. 

The  determination  of  the  broad 
questions  (1)  of  the  share  of  the  cost 
of  any  project  that  is  to  be  assessed, 
and  (2)  of  the  boundaries  of  the  area 
of  benefit,  must  be  settled  for  each  in- 
dividual project,  but  always  on  the 
basis  of  an  established  municipal 
policy.  The  lack  of  such  a  general 
policy  and  the  settlement  of  these 
questions  in  accordance  with  political 
expediency  can  result  in  nothing  but 


58 


NATIONAL  MUNICIPAL  REVIEW 


[February 


injustice  and  fluctuating  land  values. 
Once  the  amount  to  be  assessed  and 
the  area  of  benefit  have  been  deter- 
mined the  individual  levies  can  be 
made  equitably  on  the  basis  of  accepted 
assessment  rules.     It  must  not  be  for- 


gotten that  these  rules  have  been  based 
on  careful  analyses  of  the  effects  of 
different  types  of  improvements  and 
of  long  experience,  and  that  their 
conformity  to  the  facts  has  been  fre- 
quently tested. 


BRIEF  BIBLIOGRAPHY  AND  REFERENCES  ON  SPECIAL  ASSESSMENTS 


1.  Bassett,  W.  a.  Special  assessments. 
Library  of  National  Institute  of  Public  Adminis- 
tration, 261  Broadway,  New  York.  1921.  130 
PP»  (typewritten). 

2.  DiLXON,  J.  F.  Law  of  Municipal  Corpora- 
tions.    5  V.     1911. 

3.  Engineering  Societies  Library,  New 
York  City.  Special  searches  No.  383,  383A 
and  2897,  Special  assessments.  (Prepared  for 
the  Bureau  of  Municipal  Research,  New  York 
City.) 

4.  Haig,  R.  M.  The  American  system  of 
special  assessments  and  its  applicability  to  other 
coimtries.  1917.  8  pp.  Paper  presented  be- 
fore the  Second  Pan-American  Scientific  Con- 
gress, WashiHgton,  December  27,  1915-January 
8,  1916. 

5.  Lewis,  N.  P.  Taxation  and  special  assess- 
ments. In  Mimicipal  Engineering,  Vol.  XIII, 
p.  268. 

.     Paying  the  bills  for  city  planning.     In 

National  City  Plaiming  Conference  Proceedings 
1912. 

.  Theory  and  practice  of  laying  assess- 
ments for  benefit.     In  Public  Policy,  v.  3,  p.  349. 

6.  Library  of  Congress.  Division  of  Bibli- 
ography. Select  list  of  references  on  special 
assessments  for  Municipal  Improvements.  1911. 
4  pp.  (typewritten). 

.     Supplementary  list  1915.     5  pp. 

7.  McQuillan,  Eugene.  Law  of  Municipal 
Corporations,  6  v.     1911-13,  Supplements  1920. 

8.  Municipal    Reference    Library,    New 


York.  A  selected  bibliography  on  real  estate 
assessments.  1921.  7  pp.  (Contains  numer- 
ous references  on  special  assessments.) 

9.  New  York  City.  Board  of  Estimate. 
Report  of  Chief  Engineer,  1911,  1916,  1917. 

10.  New  York  City,  Board  of  Estimate. 
Chief  Engineer.  ■  Report  showing  the  resiJts  of 
an  investigation  of  the  practice  heretofore  fol- 
lowed in  levying  assessments  for  street  and  park 
openings,  with  suggestions  as  to  future  policy. 
October  6,  1907.     42  pp. 

11.  Ormond,  W.  C.  Assessments  for  local 
improvements.  Municipal  Engineers  of  the 
City  of  New  York,  paper  No.  89,  presented  May 
27.  1914.     51  pp. 

12.  Ridley,  C.  E.  The  growing  importance 
of  special  assessments  as  a  source  of  municipal 
revenue.  (Describes  Flint,  Michigan,  plan.) 
Library  of  National  Institute  of  Public  Adminis- 
tration.    52  pp.  (typewritten). 

13.  Rosewater,  Victor.  Special  assess- 
ments. Columbia  University.  Studies  in  his- 
tory, economics  and  public  law.  V.  2,  No.  3.  2d 
edition,  1898.  156  pp.  (Bibliography  p.  152- 
153.) 

14.  Seligman,  E.  R.  a.  The  betterment  tax. 
In  his  Essays  in  Taxation,  1913,  p,  433-450. 

15.  Swan,  Herbert.  The  assessment  of 
benefits  and  damages  in  streets  proceedings. 
American  City  pamphlets,  No.  151. 

16.  Whinery,  S.  Special  assessments.  In 
his  Municipal  Public  Works,  1903,  chap,  XII,  p. 
156-174. 


NOTES  AND  EVENTS 


C.  A.  Dykstra  has  resigned  as  secretary  of  the 
City  Club  of  Chicago  and  moved  to  California  to 
become  secretary  of  the  Los  Angeles  City  Club. 
* 

Hany  H.  Freeman  has  resigned  as  secretary  of 
the  City  Managers'  Association  to  accept  a  busi- 
ness position.  Paul  B.  Wilcox,  assistant  city 
manager  of  East  Cleveland,  Ohio,  succeeds  Mr. 
Freeman  as  secretary  of  the  C.  M.  A. 
* 

Miss  Edith  Rockwood,  formerly  on  the  staff  of 
the  Woman's  City  Club  of  Chicago,  has  been 
made  executive  secretary  of  the  Illinois  League  of 
Women  Voters  with  headquarters  at  Chicago. 
* 

Kenosha  to  Vote  on  C.  M.  Government. — 
Early  in  January  the  League  filled  a  rush  order 
from  Kenosha,  Wisconsin,  for  10,000  copies  of 
the  "Story  of  the  City-Manager  Plan,"  one  of 
the  pamphlets  of  our  Pocket  Civic  Series. 
These  were  used  in  the  campaign  for  a  city-mana- 
ger charter  which  culminated  in  an  election  on 
January  26. 

* 

Illinois  Municipal  League. — Among  the  imme- 
diate projects  of  the  League  announced  by  Secre- 
tary R.  M.  Story  of  Urbana  is  the  promotion  of 
legislation  that  will  make  possible  the  further 
adoption  of  the  city-manager  plan  among  Illinois 
municipalities.  At  present  only  cities  of  5,000 
or  less  are  empowered  to  adopt  the  plan. 
* 

St.  Paul  Rejects  New  Charter.— St.  Paul 
voters  are  to  be  congratulated  upon  having  re- 
jected the  charter  submitted  at  the  election  on 
December  29.  As  explained  in  the  January 
Review  the  new  charter  provided  for  a  mayor 
and  council  to  replace  present  commission  gov- 
ernment. The  mayor-council  plan  was  not  of 
the  approved  type,  however.  A  number  of 
administrative  boards  were  set  up  and  power  was 
divided  between  the  mayor,  the  boards  and  the 
comptroller. 

♦ 

Boston  Elects  New  Mayor.— Although  hardly 
a  political  leader  in  the  city  supported  him, 
James  M.  Curley  won  the  Boston  mayoralty  con- 


test last  December  with  a  plurality  of  2,698. 
The  mayor-elect's  past  term,  1914-1917,  was 
against  him,  as  his  opponents  found  no  difficulty 
in  capitalizing  on  many  points,  but  despite  their 
logic  and  the  Good  Government  Association's 
backing  of  John  R.  Murphy,  Mr.  Curley 's  cam- 
paigning methods  and  personal  appeal  won  him 
the  necessary  votes. 

There  were  four  candidates  in  the  field,  and  the 
contest  was  unusually  intense  and  bitter  in  per- 
sonal criticism.  At  the  polls  the  women  did  not 
show  as  much  enthusiasm  as  was  expected  of 
them,  and  the  Murphy  supporters  believe  that 
this  fact  was  much  to  their  candidate's  disadvan- 
tage. 

The  total  vote  cast  was   160,906,  and  was 
divided  as  follows:  James  M.  Curley,  74,260; 
John  R.  Murphy,  71,562;  Charles  S.  O'Connor, 
10,818;  Charles  S.  Baxter,  4,266. 
* 

A  Judidaiy  Constitutional  Convention.— It 
has  been  a  year  of  economic  disturbance  and 
acute  international  crises,  so  the  ordinary  man 
may  be  forgiven  if  he  paid  little  attention  to  the 
judiciary  constitutional  convention  which  re- 
cently adjourned  in  New  York.  Created  by  the 
1921  legislature  to  suggest  amendments  to  the 
judiciary  article  of  the  state  constitution  it 
reports  that  no  material  changes  in  the  judicial 
system  are  necessary.  The  election  of  judges  is 
to  be  retained  in  preference  to  the  appointive 
system.  No  changes  are  proposed  in  the  organi- 
zation of  the  higher  courts  and  only  minor  ones  in 
the  organization  of  the  lower  courts.  The  con- 
vention was  indeed  free  from  what  Macaulay 
called  the  "mere  rage  of  experiment."  Com- 
placency was  the  keynote. 
* 

Altoona  Council  Gives  Up  C.  M.  Plan.— 
Advocates  of  the  city- manager  system  have 
always  pointed  out  that  where  it  has  been 
adopted  by  a  mere  ordinance  of  the  council  it  is 
relatively  unstable  and  not  apt  to  be  so  effective 
as  where  it  has  been  made  an  organic  part  of  the 
charter.  Altoona,  Pennsylvania,  is  a  recent  case 
in  point.  After  several  years  of  successful  opera- 
tion under  a  commission-council  pledged  to  the 
plan  two  new  members  were  elected  opposed  to 
it.    As  a  consequence  Altoona  reverted  to  com* 


59 


NATIONAL  MUNICIPAL  REVIEW 


[February 


mission  government  on  January  2.  C.  Gordon 
Hinckle,  who  served  as  manager  for  the  four 
years  the  plan  was  in  effect  and  enjoyed  the  full 
conBdence  of  the  old  council,  has  been  appointed 
manager  of  Columbus,  Georgia. 


Esthetics  and  the  Constitution. — ^The  recent 
case  of  Tovm  of  Wind.for  v.  Whitney  in  the 
Supreme  Court  of  Connecticut  (95  Conn.,  357) 
deserves  mention.  A  statute  providing  for  a 
building  line  set  back  from  the  street  line  where  a 
private  owner  seeks  to  open  streets  through  his 
property,  such  streets  and  setback  to  be  in  accord 
with  a  town  plan  previously  adopted  by  the  town 
commission,  was  upheld  as  constitutional  and  as 
a  proper  exercise  of  the  i)olice  or  general  legisla- 
tive power  of  the  state,  requiring  no  compensa- 
tion to  the  owner.  Incidentally  the  court  re- 
ferred several  times  to  beauty  as  a  factor  sup- 
porting such  regulations  and  as  stabilizing  land 
values.  It  also  said :  "  The  state  .  .  .  may 
prevent  the  erection  of  billboards  or  limit  their 
height.  In  short,  it  may  regulate  any  business 
or  the  use  of  any  property  in  the  interest  of  the 
public  health,  safety  or  welfare,  provided  this  be 
done  reasonably.  To  that  extent  the  public 
interest  is  supreme  and  the  private  interest  must 
yield." 

Albebt  S.  Babd. 


Fiirther  Administrative  Consolidation  Pro- 
posed in  Massachusetts. — The  Massachusetts 
commission  on  State  Administration  and  Expend- 
itures reported  last  month  recommending  more 
complete  reorganization  of  the  state  depart- 
ments. The  commission  finds  that  the  act  of 
1919  did  not  concentrate  authority  in  any  one 
center  and  therefore  did  not  and  could  not  attain 
administrative  efficiency.  It  will  be  recalled 
that  this  measure  set  up  twenty  independent 
departments  in  addition  to  several  agencies 
which  were  left  under  the  general  supervision  of 
the  governor  and  council.  Practically  all  the 
offices  connected  with  the  former  administrative 
agencies  were  retain  without  alteration  in  per- 
sonnel or  duties. 

The  commission  believes  that  there  is  much 
waste  and  inefficiency  due  to  the  failure  to  secure 
complete  reorganization.  It  finds  that  there  is 
no  uniformity  among  the  departments  with 
respect  to  purchasing  methods.  The  present 
system  of  accounting  is  wholly  inadequate  for  the 
needs  of  to-day.  Because  of  defective  co-ordi- 
nation each  department  thinks  primarily  if  not 
exclusively  of  its  own  work  rather  than  of  its 
function  as  a  co-operating  part  of  a  common 
instrument.  The  commission  believes  that  it 
proposed  consolidations  would  save  the  sen.sa- 
tional  sum  of  $10,000,000  a  year. 

H.  W.  DODDS. 


CHAS.  BROSSMAN 

M«m.Am.Soc.C.E.  Mem.  Am.  Soe.  M.E. 

Consulting  Engineer 

Water  Worka  and  Electric  Light  Plants 

Sewerage  and  Sewage  Disposal 
Merchants  Bank,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 


of  OrxHQiza- 

tion— Methods— iidminiatratiun— Salary  Standardization 
— Budget  Making— Taxation— Kereuuei— Kxpenditurei— 
ClTil  Serrire- Accounting— Public  Worlii 

J.  L.  JACOBS  &  COMPANY 

Municipal  CortMultantt  and  Engin€€rt 
Monadnock  Building,  Chicago 

(Over  11  yr».'  experience  in  City,  County  and  State  Studif) 


PROPORTIONAL  REPRESENTATION 

Bast  Basic  for  the  City  Manager  Plan 

Send  25c  For  Lf  t.  No.  1 0  (How  P.  R.  Works  in  Sacramento) 
and  new  Ut.  No.  5  (ExplanaUon  of  Hare  System  of  P.  R.) 

Still  better,  join  the  League.    Dues,  $2.  pay  for  quarterly 
Review  and  all  other  literature  for  year. 

PROPORTIONAL  REPRESENTATION  LEAGUE 
1417  LOCUST  STREET,            PHILADELPHIA 

R.  HUSSELMAN 

Consultini;  Engineer 

Design  and   Construction  of   Power  Stations   and 

Lighting  Systems 

Reports.  Estimates  and  Specifications 

Appraisals   and    Rate   Investigations 

Electric.  Gas  and  Street  Railway 

CUYAHOGA   BUILDING,     CLEVELAND,    O. 

A  MODEL  CITY  CHARTER 

This  model  city  charter  drafted  by  a  committee  of  experts  has  been  used  by  hundreds 
of  cities  when  rewriting  their  charters. 

Pamphlet  Copies  of  Model  Charter 50  cents  each. 

NATIONAL  MUNICIPAL  LEAGUE                                 261  Broadway,  New  York  City 

•«r^30! 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CAUFORNIA  LIBRARY 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN     INITIAL     FINE    OF    25    CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  50  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.00  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


APit    151936 


7BC 


aflov'62TIf 

NOV  11 1962 

*May'63H| 

1  [ECO  CO 


^Pf?26l.q.i;7 


gSyOWO  FEB    2*73-1  PM     » 


